I could point to many examples (looking at you, PureFlix), but this post responds explicitly to Anna M. Perez (@A_M_Perez) and her blog post I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist! If you think the title looks familiar, you’re not alone. It’s the same title as Frank Turek’s apologetics book (although the capitalization is a bit off). I’d be surprised if he knew she was using his title on her blog post without permission, but I doubt he cares about her lack of creativity.
I don’t care about her lack of creativity either. I do, however, care about her incredible misrepresentations of not only atheists but science in general. If you'd like to see how she acts and speaks on a regular basis, check out her Twitter profile.
Before I begin breaking down her blog post, I’d like to state a few things I won’t be doing.
1) I will absolutely not take anything she says out of context or attempt to misrepresent her statements with partially-written quotes. I see this happen over and over again when I read creationist materials or, as you’ll see in this post, when certain Christians attempt to discredit atheists (or anybody or anything that does not line up precisely with their worldview). If I quote this post, you will see the context and meaning behind it.
2) I won’t be attacking the author of the post specifically. I’ve never met the person and have no idea what she is actually like or how she thinks. I will certainly tear her post to shreds, but nothing I say is directed at the author.
3) I won’t block her or any of her followers or supporters. I also won’t respond with insults or denigrate the intelligence of any person that responds.
Alright, let’s get into this. By the way, if you’d like to take the time to read her post in its entirety, here is the link. Please be warned, your brain may not handle the cognitive dissonance. I’d take medicine before treading into those waters.
As I started reading this blog post, I was hoping to discover a new way of looking at things. As I, and basically every other atheist I know says, God might exist. We don’t know. We certainly won’t tell you your deity doesn’t exist, but the burden of proof is not on the skeptic. Rather, this burden is placed squarely on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
I state this because, from the first graphic (actually, it’s the only graphic), I could tell I would learn absolutely nothing or discover new evidence or even a way of looking at the world and supernatural.
Before the first sentence, Anna has decided to place a graphic that’s so absolutely asinine I almost stopped reading before I even started. Here it is:
Yea, it says what you think (emphasis mine): “If your religion is based on faith without a shred of evidence to support it, you might be an Atheist!”
As I started reading this blog post, I was hoping to discover a new way of looking at things. As I, and basically every other atheist I know says, God might exist. We don’t know. We certainly won’t tell you your deity doesn’t exist, but the burden of proof is not on the skeptic. Rather, this burden is placed squarely on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
I state this because, from the first graphic (actually, it’s the only graphic), I could tell I would learn absolutely nothing or discover new evidence or even a way of looking at the world and supernatural.
Before the first sentence, Anna has decided to place a graphic that’s so absolutely asinine I almost stopped reading before I even started. Here it is:
Yea, it says what you think (emphasis mine): “If your religion is based on faith without a shred of evidence to support it, you might be an Atheist!”
Anna makes the assertion that atheism is a religion a multitude of times throughout her post. She uses that word, along with “beliefs,” to discredit anything atheists might say or do. This is absolutely incorrect and misrepresents atheism as a whole. As the old saying goes, atheism is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby. I realize that analogy is more rejected by those of religious faiths (see what I did there?) these days, but it seems to still hold its own based simply on the context of this blog post. I’ll explain.
When she states, “…based on faith without a shred of evidence to prove it…” she’s actually providing an exact definition of faith. Faith is, fairly succinctly, believing in something despite lacking substantive evidence to lend credence to said belief. The Christian Bible, for example, uses the book of Hebrews to state the definition of faith quite clearly: “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
The American Atheists answer the question much better than I ever could:
The American Atheists answer the question much better than I ever could:
“Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.”
After stating atheists “hate the word faith” even though it’s all we have, Anna shows her hand in the worst way possible. Her entire next sentence:
"They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.”
After stating atheists “hate the word faith” even though it’s all we have, Anna shows her hand in the worst way possible. Her entire next sentence:
"They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God."
Atheism is not based on science. Atheism isn’t “based” on anything. Atheism simply is the lack of belief in gods. Now, do most atheists use science (science is not confined to just biology or astronomy. Science is an incredibly broad subject) to test the validity of claims? Absolutely. These tests are not limited to religion, though.
She is, perhaps most notably, incorrect about science lacking the ability to prove the existence of any gods. That is actually exactly what we need to use to prove any supernatural claims. Science does not deal in the supernatural and has no opinion about religious claims, but science could absolutely validate her religion. It simply requires testable evidence. As of yet, that evidence has yet to present itself.
Her next paragraph begins with a statement that shows she truly believes atheism and science are the same concept.
“Atheists most definitely have beliefs, such as life starting somehow out of no life.”
She’s speaking, quite horribly, about abiogenesis and making it seem as though atheism is rooted in abiogenesis. Her definition is so off base and misrepresents basic science so horribly that I head to read this paragraph a few times.
“Basically there were rocks, then all of a sudden a single cell organism came to life out of nowhere. This is called abiogenesis. A spontaneous generation of life where there was none.”
She goes on to say we “use fancy words like primordial soup” even though we have no scientific evidence of what it is or what it would be composed of. As I’ve stated before, theories about where life came from and our scientific understanding of the early Earth is not atheism. It’s science.
I’m not certain if you know this, but a 2014 study performed by Rice University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that over two million American scientists identify as Christians. Of those, 17 percent identify as evangelical. Feel free to verify my claim. See what I did there? I made a statement and then backed it up with evidence. Pretty cool, huh?
Anna then states how atheists can’t stand the fact that abiogenesis is rooted in faith and repeats herself by saying there’s no evidence. Her next sentence, though, is actually something I (partially) agree with.
“There isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred and even if it had, there could be no scientific way to prove that God wasn’t behind it.”
“Basically there were rocks, then all of a sudden a single cell organism came to life out of nowhere. This is called abiogenesis. A spontaneous generation of life where there was none.”
She goes on to say we “use fancy words like primordial soup” even though we have no scientific evidence of what it is or what it would be composed of. As I’ve stated before, theories about where life came from and our scientific understanding of the early Earth is not atheism. It’s science.
I’m not certain if you know this, but a 2014 study performed by Rice University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that over two million American scientists identify as Christians. Of those, 17 percent identify as evangelical. Feel free to verify my claim. See what I did there? I made a statement and then backed it up with evidence. Pretty cool, huh?
Anna then states how atheists can’t stand the fact that abiogenesis is rooted in faith and repeats herself by saying there’s no evidence. Her next sentence, though, is actually something I (partially) agree with.
“There isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred and even if it had, there could be no scientific way to prove that God wasn’t behind it.”
Ignoring the obvious error of the first part of your run-on sentence, you say no scientist could prove God wasn’t behind it. Exactly! Science doesn’t try and prove something isn’t there. Science only makes observations based on the evidence that exists. I’ll say this: maybe a deity is behind the creation of life on this planet. Maybe that deity is your particular God. Sure. It’s possible. Until you can provide evidence for your claim, though, I remain skeptical.
For some reason, Anna’s next attack is aimed directly at Richard Dawkins.
“Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins have made the foolhardy mistake of trying to avoid the topic of abiogenesis by making the claim that perhaps aliens seeded life on Earth.”
For some reason, Anna’s next attack is aimed directly at Richard Dawkins.
“Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins have made the foolhardy mistake of trying to avoid the topic of abiogenesis by making the claim that perhaps aliens seeded life on Earth.”
I’m literally laughing at this poor attempt of an attack. Professor Dawkins never said what she is claiming. Well, not in that way. In the movie “Expelled”, Dawkins was interviewed by Ben Stein.
When asked about how life got here, he said the same thing you’ll hear from most scientists:
“Nobody knows how it started. We know the kind of event it must have been, the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”
Stein asked him how that happened, and his response is, “I’ve told you, we don’t know.” Nobody, not Richard Dawkins, nor anybody else, knows how life started.
Stein goes on to ask Richard about the possibility of a designer, and this is where the quote mine comes from.
He stated, “It could be that, at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some sort of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. That is a possibility, an intriguing possibility. I suppose it’s possible you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our biology connected to chemistry. You might find some sort of designer. That designer could be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”
Yes, Anna could easily use that as ammunition against Dawkins and all those who decry intelligent design. What she ignores, though, are the next few words he says.
“That higher intelligence itself would have had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.”
Dawkins was asked a hypothetical question. He responded with a hypothetical answer and followed it up by stating even that designer would have to have been designed. I must also point out that Dawkins, among many others interviewed in this film, were misled about what they were interviewing for. I recommend a quick Google search before quoting this type of religious misrepresentation.
Anna asks the same question Richard did: what created the aliens? Exactly, Anna! You follow that up by stating it would be “far more likely” for a Buick to appear on Mars than for a living cell to “have suddenly been constructed” out of primordial soup (which, again, inaccurately explains abiogenesis.
In the paragraph, you attempted to use multiple common fallacies, including an appeal to authority (against Richard Dawkins instead of referencing him in a positive light), Watchmaker and even Special Pleading (even though everything else requires a designer, your particular deity doesn’t). Trust me, if anything you said was rock-solid, you wouldn’t need to lower yourself to fallacies.
In her next paragraph (trust me, the blog post isn’t this long), Anna states that atheists, being “afraid” to debate abiogenesis, steer the discussion to evolution. Now Anna, please don’t say that. I’ve seen your Twitter profile and timeline. Nobody is at all afraid to debate you. In fact, when more than a few attempt to engage in healthy debate, you say you’ve “grown bored” of their conversation and block them with the most ridiculous and arrogant meme I’ve seen in years.
Seriously. That's what she posts when she blocks you. I have no other words.
Also, this isn’t about atheists. This is science. You even stated most scientists (who, judging by your writing, know a bit more about science than you) understand evolution to be true. Why you continue to equate science with atheism baffles me. But…moving on.
Anna states paleontology and geology (as if these are the only types of science that study evolution) are far from perfect. She’s correct. Science is far from perfect. That’s why Nobel Prizes are awarded yearly to those who make significant scientific progress. We are, by most standards, in the infancy of our understanding of the world.
This is where she fails, though. She states there are two different types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. That’s incorrect. Sure, microevolution and macroevolution are different words, but they are exactly the same concept. The only difference: time. Lots of time.
As it currently stands, the different types of evolution are as follows: convergent evolution, divergent evolution, parallel evolution and coevolution. Please take the time to research evolution properly before you attempt to dissect it.
Oh wait, that’s what you attempted to do in your blog post when you stated microevolution can be seen and referenced, as so many that don’t understand evolution do, that we breed dogs and get dogs. Well yea! What would you expect to get when you breed a dog? A freaking penguin? No scientist has ever said that about evolution. Scientists also haven’t even come close to saying what you claim in your next sentence:
“Macro evolution, would give us something other than a dog when breeding dogs, maybe a bear.”
No, that isn’t what macroevolution says. At all. Sheesh, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Where have ya been with your Crocoduck?
Anna goes on to say the fossil record fails to show any evidence of evolution. Okay, whatever you say, but, again, what does this have to do with atheism? This is science, not religion.
When asked about how life got here, he said the same thing you’ll hear from most scientists:
“Nobody knows how it started. We know the kind of event it must have been, the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”
Stein asked him how that happened, and his response is, “I’ve told you, we don’t know.” Nobody, not Richard Dawkins, nor anybody else, knows how life started.
Stein goes on to ask Richard about the possibility of a designer, and this is where the quote mine comes from.
He stated, “It could be that, at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some sort of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. That is a possibility, an intriguing possibility. I suppose it’s possible you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our biology connected to chemistry. You might find some sort of designer. That designer could be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”
Yes, Anna could easily use that as ammunition against Dawkins and all those who decry intelligent design. What she ignores, though, are the next few words he says.
“That higher intelligence itself would have had to have come about by some ultimately explicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That’s the point.”
Dawkins was asked a hypothetical question. He responded with a hypothetical answer and followed it up by stating even that designer would have to have been designed. I must also point out that Dawkins, among many others interviewed in this film, were misled about what they were interviewing for. I recommend a quick Google search before quoting this type of religious misrepresentation.
Anna asks the same question Richard did: what created the aliens? Exactly, Anna! You follow that up by stating it would be “far more likely” for a Buick to appear on Mars than for a living cell to “have suddenly been constructed” out of primordial soup (which, again, inaccurately explains abiogenesis.
In the paragraph, you attempted to use multiple common fallacies, including an appeal to authority (against Richard Dawkins instead of referencing him in a positive light), Watchmaker and even Special Pleading (even though everything else requires a designer, your particular deity doesn’t). Trust me, if anything you said was rock-solid, you wouldn’t need to lower yourself to fallacies.
In her next paragraph (trust me, the blog post isn’t this long), Anna states that atheists, being “afraid” to debate abiogenesis, steer the discussion to evolution. Now Anna, please don’t say that. I’ve seen your Twitter profile and timeline. Nobody is at all afraid to debate you. In fact, when more than a few attempt to engage in healthy debate, you say you’ve “grown bored” of their conversation and block them with the most ridiculous and arrogant meme I’ve seen in years.
Seriously. That's what she posts when she blocks you. I have no other words.
Also, this isn’t about atheists. This is science. You even stated most scientists (who, judging by your writing, know a bit more about science than you) understand evolution to be true. Why you continue to equate science with atheism baffles me. But…moving on.
Anna states paleontology and geology (as if these are the only types of science that study evolution) are far from perfect. She’s correct. Science is far from perfect. That’s why Nobel Prizes are awarded yearly to those who make significant scientific progress. We are, by most standards, in the infancy of our understanding of the world.
This is where she fails, though. She states there are two different types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution. That’s incorrect. Sure, microevolution and macroevolution are different words, but they are exactly the same concept. The only difference: time. Lots of time.
As it currently stands, the different types of evolution are as follows: convergent evolution, divergent evolution, parallel evolution and coevolution. Please take the time to research evolution properly before you attempt to dissect it.
Oh wait, that’s what you attempted to do in your blog post when you stated microevolution can be seen and referenced, as so many that don’t understand evolution do, that we breed dogs and get dogs. Well yea! What would you expect to get when you breed a dog? A freaking penguin? No scientist has ever said that about evolution. Scientists also haven’t even come close to saying what you claim in your next sentence:
“Macro evolution, would give us something other than a dog when breeding dogs, maybe a bear.”
No, that isn’t what macroevolution says. At all. Sheesh, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Where have ya been with your Crocoduck?
Anna goes on to say the fossil record fails to show any evidence of evolution. Okay, whatever you say, but, again, what does this have to do with atheism? This is science, not religion.
“This isn’t to say that it couldn’t have happened. Christianity in particular wouldn’t be threatened if macro evolution were a proven fact. It’s a moot point. Christians would not mind seeing the evidence. Atheists on the other hand have firmly held beliefs in macro evolution with very poor evidence to go on. That’s called faith.”
You’re correct in your first statement because, well, it has happened. It continues to occur. Many sects of Christianity aren’t threatened. In fact, most Catholics accept evolution to be true. You say Christians (meaning, I suppose, you and others who deny basic science) wouldn’t mind seeing the evidence. Uh, have you been to a museum lately? There’s evidence everywhere. You’re choosing to not study it. That’s not the fault of science.
And no, before you turn this around, it isn’t the same as your claim of a supernatural deity. Provide evidence for me to reject.
In her next paragraph, Anna attempts to (vaguely) discredit even more basic science. This time, the field of study is none other than geology. She attempts to discredit geology in general (again, this has nothing to do with atheism but whatever) by stating geologists still follow some of the basic principles of Nicholas Steno, including Steno’s law of superposition.
She calls Steno’s law, which she explains as, “…sedimentary layers must be older the further you go down,” a logical assumption to make before attempting to discredit the law. Anna, honey, you can’t explain the law of superposition without also including “unless later processes disturb this arrangement.” Again, that’s quote-mining and is a dishonest attempt to discredit science. Please discontinue this blatant misrepresentation.
Anna says, “Oddly enough, in flood situations all of the layers are laid down simultaneously,” and links to a YouTube video titled Flood Geology and Stratification Experiments. What’s this? Actual science with empirical evidence to solidify your claim? Well then. Let me click.
Yea, just as I thought. As you can see, this is a creationist video. The author, nobigbang, has uploaded 14 videos to YouTube. All of them attempt to debunk science and speak to a young Earth with a literal biblical flood. I didn’t even watch the video. I closed the tab immediately.
I’m guessing Anna is referring to the biblical flood when she states that each layer is laid down simultaneously. I would like to see scientific evidence of this because I have seen the exact opposite. Even in a flood, of which I have seen much recently, rocks and sediments have layers. The heaviest always falls to the bottom first.
By the way, before you discredit Steno, I think I would be wise to do your research on the guy. Steno's law is a statement of relative time, not absolute time: two rock layers, in principle, could have formed millions of years apart or a few hours or days apart. Steno himself saw no difficulty in attributing the formation of most rocks to the flood mentioned in the Bible. However, he noticed that, of the two major rock types in the Apennine Mountains near Florence, the lower layers had no fossils, while the upper ones were rich in fossils. He suggested that the upper layers had formed in the Flood, after the creation of life, while the lower ones had formed before life had existed.
You’re correct in your first statement because, well, it has happened. It continues to occur. Many sects of Christianity aren’t threatened. In fact, most Catholics accept evolution to be true. You say Christians (meaning, I suppose, you and others who deny basic science) wouldn’t mind seeing the evidence. Uh, have you been to a museum lately? There’s evidence everywhere. You’re choosing to not study it. That’s not the fault of science.
And no, before you turn this around, it isn’t the same as your claim of a supernatural deity. Provide evidence for me to reject.
In her next paragraph, Anna attempts to (vaguely) discredit even more basic science. This time, the field of study is none other than geology. She attempts to discredit geology in general (again, this has nothing to do with atheism but whatever) by stating geologists still follow some of the basic principles of Nicholas Steno, including Steno’s law of superposition.
She calls Steno’s law, which she explains as, “…sedimentary layers must be older the further you go down,” a logical assumption to make before attempting to discredit the law. Anna, honey, you can’t explain the law of superposition without also including “unless later processes disturb this arrangement.” Again, that’s quote-mining and is a dishonest attempt to discredit science. Please discontinue this blatant misrepresentation.
Anna says, “Oddly enough, in flood situations all of the layers are laid down simultaneously,” and links to a YouTube video titled Flood Geology and Stratification Experiments. What’s this? Actual science with empirical evidence to solidify your claim? Well then. Let me click.
Yea, just as I thought. As you can see, this is a creationist video. The author, nobigbang, has uploaded 14 videos to YouTube. All of them attempt to debunk science and speak to a young Earth with a literal biblical flood. I didn’t even watch the video. I closed the tab immediately.
I’m guessing Anna is referring to the biblical flood when she states that each layer is laid down simultaneously. I would like to see scientific evidence of this because I have seen the exact opposite. Even in a flood, of which I have seen much recently, rocks and sediments have layers. The heaviest always falls to the bottom first.
By the way, before you discredit Steno, I think I would be wise to do your research on the guy. Steno's law is a statement of relative time, not absolute time: two rock layers, in principle, could have formed millions of years apart or a few hours or days apart. Steno himself saw no difficulty in attributing the formation of most rocks to the flood mentioned in the Bible. However, he noticed that, of the two major rock types in the Apennine Mountains near Florence, the lower layers had no fossils, while the upper ones were rich in fossils. He suggested that the upper layers had formed in the Flood, after the creation of life, while the lower ones had formed before life had existed.
I'm going to guess you had no idea any of the above was true.
I agree with literally almost every word in the next paragraph.
“Regardless of what is ever proven scientifically in the fossil record about evolution, it remains moot. A God who is powerful enough to create an entire universe and a planet teaming with life could have easily developed evolution as well. Evolution could never prove or disprove the existence of God.”
Yes, all of that is true. Nothing in science disproves God. It doesn’t try to. I have even said God could have done it. If that’s the case, though, how will you feel? I mean, if God (the one you believe in) set this whole evolution thing in motion and it’s a real thing, how dumb will you feel? Will you just block God on Twitter?
Her next sentence, which is the last in the paragraph, states that atheists turn to evolution simply because we have science on our side. No, we speak about evolution because it’s true.
In her next paragraph, Anna speaks about causality. She again accidentally calls scientists atheists when she states the following:
“One thing that science has always shown to be true is that there can never be an effect without a cause. Atheists have a lot of faith in the Big Bang occurring without a cause. Scientists and mathematicians have worked long and hard to determine the nature of the universe before the Big Bang and the consensus is that there was nothing.”
See where she accidentally put atheists at the beginning of that second sentence right before she completely misrepresented the Big Bang Theory?
That’s what she does for the next two paragraphs. She completely misrepresents science and continues to equate atheism with science. The two are incredibly different and separate. In reality, atheism is a science as much as a Corgi is a planet. I mean, let's be honest. That would be an awesome planet, right? Alas, a Corgi is but an amazing canine. So no, a Corgi isn't a planet. So it doesn’t make sense, right? Yea, not at all.
For some reason, Anna uses the video game The Sims as a way to prove we require a designer. Didn’t we already go through this? What made the designer? Oh, the designer just always was? Okay. So was my beer. It just always was in my hands.
The last paragraph is a lot of fun. She states the way that atheists say we don’t use faith is “laughable” and calls us “liars” because we “deny the faith” which makes up our “core beliefs.” She ends her post with the following:
I agree with literally almost every word in the next paragraph.
“Regardless of what is ever proven scientifically in the fossil record about evolution, it remains moot. A God who is powerful enough to create an entire universe and a planet teaming with life could have easily developed evolution as well. Evolution could never prove or disprove the existence of God.”
Yes, all of that is true. Nothing in science disproves God. It doesn’t try to. I have even said God could have done it. If that’s the case, though, how will you feel? I mean, if God (the one you believe in) set this whole evolution thing in motion and it’s a real thing, how dumb will you feel? Will you just block God on Twitter?
Her next sentence, which is the last in the paragraph, states that atheists turn to evolution simply because we have science on our side. No, we speak about evolution because it’s true.
In her next paragraph, Anna speaks about causality. She again accidentally calls scientists atheists when she states the following:
“One thing that science has always shown to be true is that there can never be an effect without a cause. Atheists have a lot of faith in the Big Bang occurring without a cause. Scientists and mathematicians have worked long and hard to determine the nature of the universe before the Big Bang and the consensus is that there was nothing.”
See where she accidentally put atheists at the beginning of that second sentence right before she completely misrepresented the Big Bang Theory?
That’s what she does for the next two paragraphs. She completely misrepresents science and continues to equate atheism with science. The two are incredibly different and separate. In reality, atheism is a science as much as a Corgi is a planet. I mean, let's be honest. That would be an awesome planet, right? Alas, a Corgi is but an amazing canine. So no, a Corgi isn't a planet. So it doesn’t make sense, right? Yea, not at all.
For some reason, Anna uses the video game The Sims as a way to prove we require a designer. Didn’t we already go through this? What made the designer? Oh, the designer just always was? Okay. So was my beer. It just always was in my hands.
The last paragraph is a lot of fun. She states the way that atheists say we don’t use faith is “laughable” and calls us “liars” because we “deny the faith” which makes up our “core beliefs.” She ends her post with the following:
“At least agnostics aren’t liars. They admit they don’t know anything. Remember all of this next time a rabid atheist tries to evangelize. They evangelize a lot!”
I suppose I should point out how wrong she is about agnosticism and atheism and how I’m an agnostic atheist, right? At the same time, does it really surprise anybody that she was uninterested in speaking truthfully about atheism in the final sentence of her post when every previous comment has been a misrepresentation or flat-out lie? Yea, me either. Oh…one more thing…
Here’s something I will absolutely continue so state: I challenge Anna M. Perez, or any person that follows her or agrees with her, to a debate. I don’t mean a Twitter “debate” that allows a person to post whatever they like with zero consequence and is finished when a person posts a horribly insulting and arrogant picture prior to blocking a person they disagree with. No, I challenge Anna (or any that agree with her) to a real debate. This debate can be in person or through a virtual medium like Google Hangouts. No I won’t debate you in the comment section or on Twitter (although I expect you to tag me in a few posts before blocking me with your ridiculous totem pole). If you’d like to debate, please mention it in an email or on Twitter.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading! I kinda jumped around a bit. I’ll do better next time. And yes, Anna, please get in contact with me. We’ll debate. In real life. I look forward to it.
I suppose I should point out how wrong she is about agnosticism and atheism and how I’m an agnostic atheist, right? At the same time, does it really surprise anybody that she was uninterested in speaking truthfully about atheism in the final sentence of her post when every previous comment has been a misrepresentation or flat-out lie? Yea, me either. Oh…one more thing…
Here’s something I will absolutely continue so state: I challenge Anna M. Perez, or any person that follows her or agrees with her, to a debate. I don’t mean a Twitter “debate” that allows a person to post whatever they like with zero consequence and is finished when a person posts a horribly insulting and arrogant picture prior to blocking a person they disagree with. No, I challenge Anna (or any that agree with her) to a real debate. This debate can be in person or through a virtual medium like Google Hangouts. No I won’t debate you in the comment section or on Twitter (although I expect you to tag me in a few posts before blocking me with your ridiculous totem pole). If you’d like to debate, please mention it in an email or on Twitter.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading! I kinda jumped around a bit. I’ll do better next time. And yes, Anna, please get in contact with me. We’ll debate. In real life. I look forward to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment